Diabetes, employment and prolonged period of time off due to illness

[leak12]

Please support the following epetition entitled ?Diabetes, employment and prolonged period of time off due to illness? by clicking this link http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/21871 and signing this epetition.

Please help to get 100,000 signatures so that this epetition can be debated in Parliament, by doing some or all of the following:

* Ask friends and family to sign this epetition.
* Tweet followers to sign and Facebook friends to sign.
* Email or text friends and family to sign.
* Post on other forums.
* Contact local Diabetes groups for their members to sign.

This will help to get the UK Government to re-examine discrimination laws that allowed an employer to fire a Diabetic because Diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, despite the Diabetic only having two days absence in two years.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Copepod]

I can't see how 2 days off in 2 years can be considered a "prolonged period". I reckon existing employment laws already give protection for that scenario.

Admittedly the change from 1 to 2 years qualifying period for unfair dismissal will make a more general difference - that needs to be fought.

 

[Robster65]

I agree entirely with Copepod. There are exisiting laws to cover this and any tribunal would be able to decide if it was unfair dismissal or not.

Rob

 

[AlisonM]

I think they mean that the person in question has only had two days off in two years until the Diabetes problem hit. But I'm not sure about that.

 

[Unicornz]

This will help to get the UK Government to re-examine discrimination laws that allowed an employer to fire a Diabetic because Diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, despite the Diabetic only having two days absence in two years.

The way I interpret this is that a Diabetic got laid off because the employer expected Diabetes to result in prolonged periods of time off in the future - despite him having had only two days absence in two years?

Although I might also be wrong 🙂

 

[leak12]

Unicornz, you are exactly right.

"I can't see how 2 days off in 2 years can be considered a "prolonged period". I reckon existing employment laws already give protection for that scenario."

No. I have taken this to the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, higher UK Courts and European Court of Human Rights. Everyone dismissed the case, hence the petition.

 

[Northerner]

Unicornz, you are exactly right.

"I can't see how 2 days off in 2 years can be considered a "prolonged period". I reckon existing employment laws already give protection for that scenario."

No. I have taken this to the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, higher UK Courts and European Court of Human Rights. Everyone dismissed the case, hence the petition.

That's dreadful and surely in contravention of the Disability and Discrimination Act? How can someone be sacked on the basis that they might be off sick? What evidence would support that? I have diabetes and I am much fitter and healthier than most of my non-diabetic peers!

 

[leak12]

That's dreadful and surely in contravention of the Disability and Discrimination Act? How can someone be sacked on the basis that they might be off sick? What evidence would support that? I have diabetes and I am much fitter and healthier than most of my non-diabetic peers!

"That's dreadful and surely in contravention of the Disability and Discrimination Act?"

No, hence the petition.

"How can someone be sacked on the basis that they might be off sick?"

Exactly, but it happened to me, I have it in writing in the form of emails.

 

[leak12]

What worries me is that the legal system tends to set precedences and follow judgments, hence it could happen to many other Diabetics.

 

[imtrying]

This is disgusting.

You cannot justify sacking someone with a reason that they 'might' be off sick. I work in HR and I've never come across the ability to do this.

Sad thing, is that if someone gets cancer, employers are more likely to allow for reasonable adjustments, time off for treatment and keeping them on full pay....diabetes and some make the most ridiculous assumptions.

The only way they could justify this decision would be if the sickness WAS bad, and then they'd need to look at the individual's ability to fulfil their contract.

I hope this is sorted out soon, and before it affects anyone else.

 

[imtrying]

oh and just to keep things up to date, the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act), RRA (Race Relations Act) and others were last year combined and are now covered together under one umbrella called The Equality Act 2010. This came into affect this year. (just in case anyone looking up legislation 🙂 )

 

[leak12]

Thanks for pointing that out imtrying, trouble is that whatever law was used it was wrong, but all these Tribunals/Courts did not see it as wrong.

I contacted The Equalities and Human Rights Commission and pointed out the wrongs of this judgment, and how many Diabetics there are in the UK and worldwide, and asked them for help.

They refused.

 

[imtrying]

I contacted The Equalities and Human Rights Commission and pointed out the wrongs of this judgment, and how many Diabetics there are in the UK and worldwide, and asked them for help.

They refused.

seriously????????? I don't get this at all. I don't understand how people can be so ignorant. And I CANNOT believe that an organisation set up to help people, gets asked to help someone and they say no!!! UNBELIEVABLE! 😡

 

[Robster65]

Surely there must be some more to this case than you've said ?

If the employment was casual then I could see that there's no contract to fight with, but if you're employed under proper UK employment law then surely you would be covered.

I'm not saying btw that you're trying to deceive us but I feel that with such an unusual case, it would be better to be sure what it is we're supporting. If none of the organisations are interested, then my assumption is that the employer is acting legally and there are other factors to consider.

Rob

 

[leak12]

Employment wasn't casual, and I had been employed by the company for 8 years.

Why not write to The Equality and Human Rights Commission yourself, and ask them to support this and see what there reply is?

I often wondered if the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a government body, does not want to take on the Tribunals, another government body. Or perhaps it is just costs.

 

[gail2]

sorry but theres something wrong here. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission will only refuse to help you if there is no case to case under law. So without meaning to sound rude or doubting there's more to this than you have posted.

 

[margie]

Is it possible to reword the petition or would you have to start another one.

The reason I ask is that if you get enough signatures - it may still be dismissed as the people reviewing it may say - I don't know what is being asked or the law already covers that. If you could amend the wording you could make it applicable to more 'disabilities' that way you may have a better chance of getting the number of signatures.

 

[gail2]

Have to agree with Margie you need to reword it and make it clear what you asking for
EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
Lord Osborne
Lady Dorrian

Lord Carloway


[2010] CSIH 66

XA165/08
If this is your case they made it very clear why they turned your case down



delivered by LORD OSBORNE



in Application



by



KENNETH McALPINE



Applicant;



for



LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

 

[Robster65]

Thank you Gail. Nice to see some background info.

Sorry that you lost your job but it seems there's no grounds left for appeal and if it were me, I'd be inclined to accept that fact and move on.

Are you controlling your diabetes without problems ?

Rob

 

[leak12]

Margie, that was my 8th attempt, some of the earlier epetitions they refused for various reasons, most didn't even reached the rejected tab.

gail1, I can assure you that The Equalities and Human Rights Commission was contacted, and did refuse to help. Perhaps it was due to the high legal costs in appeals to higher Courts. I performed a freedom of information request, and The Equalities and Human Rights Commission had only helped 121 cases as of March 2010, and many of these cases settled before Tribunal/Court. I think there are thousands of cases every year, so the percentage they help is miniscule.